Crecy!

[adrianc]

Opponents: 100YW English, Medieval French
Army size: 800 points (about 10 BG each)
Rules: 6.01 (full rules, + shooting amendments of 16.3.07)
Game duration: 6 moves in 2.5 hours


Players

Martin Hayes (umpire)
Adrian Clarke
Roger Draper
Graham Lock


For our third game with AOW we decided to do a historical refight of Crecy. The sides were just over 800 points each and we ignored any effect of the hill which the English were defending (presumed gentle). The French army would in reality have been up to three times the size of the English but this equal point matchup still gave the French 2 front ranks composed of superior knights. Due to the figures available we also have a slightly higher ratio of boat to billman (about 3-1) than occurred historically. Nor did we give them portable defences as would have been taken at Agincourt 20 years later. We were basically interested to see how well armoured mounted knights would do frontally against longbow.

The answer seems to be rather well. The French crossbowmen were disordered but not seen off by longbow fire, as they should have been. As the French player decided, most historically, not to try to infiltrate the woods on the English flanks it came down to a charge across open ground. Although some of the French Knight groups were delayed (as much by poor variable move throws as English fire) the English were not able to stop the knights closing to contact. This resulted in the destruction of a couple of English battle groups and the loss of an English general. When we abandoned the game on moves six (after two and a half hours), further parts of the English line were looking very precarious, although at one point a mixture of bow and billman was able to disorder French pavisier heavy infantry approaching them.


Points arising

Martin stood out to read the rules/umpire ??“ things would have been a bit slower if he??™d been playing with us.

We felt that English longbow with armour-piercing bodkin arrows fired at short range should have some kind of benefit in the impact phase (in lieu of highly effective short range fire)

The French knights did well in a two deep formation as it diluted the effect of bow fire hits on battle groups, even though only the front rank could fight when they got into contact.

Undrilled troops can wheel with impunity if more than six MU's from the enemy. We felt this should be a complex move, especially for wider groups.

All generals move at 7 MU's. We wondered if a distinction should be made for foot generals (not necessarily dismounted, which could remount).

We found ourselves in a position where a group of six French knights did not pursue routing enemy, despite the fact that only one-third of them remained fighting an unbroken unit alongside it. Clearly it is not desirable to split battle groups. We were unsure how this could best be addressed.

One of the English units was destroyed outright. It is not clear in the rules whether the victor should pursue. We played that they should make an immediate pursuit move.

As far as we can tell pursuing troops are not disordered in any way, even temporarily. Surely they should be?

Similarly we could not detect any disadvantage accruing to impetuous troops bursting through friends to their front. Again, surely they should be temporarily disordered?

Disrupted knights charging are only modestly disadvantaged, particularly against medium foot. Given the difficulty longbow had holding knights back, perhaps a cmt to charge if disrupted should be considered, even for shock troops.

Practically all our melees involved battle groups splitting their effect against two enemy groups. This was quite fiddly to play out and did result in a non-pursuit move, as above. Our moves were therefore quite slow (just under 30 minutes each) as the French left flank found contact somewhat before the right. By now we know the rules were reasonably well, so this seems no quicker than DBM. Difficult to see how this could be amended unless battle group width is standardised and they have to be aligned centrally on each other in combat (which isn't going to happen!) It seemed to us at the rules work better with looser horse formations manoeuvring against each other as that way single battle groups tend to line up against each other.



Martin replied to my draft report with some specific points of his own, so I include them here:

Bodies of troops are able to maintain good order/maximum fighting effectiveness too easily after evade/charge/pursuit/melee. I guess if a body charges in a controlled manner to see off evading skirmishers/shooters (ie does not exceed the normal max move), then drilled troops should stay in good order, maybe undrilled should take a cohesion test whether or not they exceed their normal move.

Perhaps troops who fight a single impact and melee should not be disordered if the fight lasts one bound only. However, after more protracted h to h fighting, both sides should count as in some kind of disrupted state, not just the losers. This would promote the use of multiple battle lines and reserves to protect/replace troops during or after their combat, the kind of thing that often gave "drilled " armies an edge.

Evading troops is a difficult one, but once again, maybe one should distinguish between armies which used evades as a battle tactic they practiced and those who used it simply out of a wish of the warriors to preserve their lives! In the first case, maybe a controlled evade in good order would be the norm, but in second, the body may need to rally on standards etc to reorder itself?

I think that by their very nature, troops in pursuit would not be in a state of good order, however they would hit a fresh body with some impetus if their blood was up and bugger their cohesion! I can see a case for a cmt test to stop them hitting a fresh enemy unit, as I can see a case for a unit with a rout going past which is about to be hit by pursuers to have to take a cohesion test!

Thank you Martin!


We got the impression that the rules as currently formulated would reverse the Crecy result more often than not.

We might try a 25mm game next, as we are hoping to put on a demonstration game at the Weymouth show in a month or so. The game was fun to play, but certainly didn't have a "quick play" feel to it. I notice that a previous battle report stretched to 5 hours play before light failed!

Adrian Clarke

[hammy]

We felt that English longbow with armour-piercing bodkin arrows fired at short range should have some kind of benefit in the impact phase (in lieu of highly effective short range fire)

The second rank of the bow BG will shoot overhead and get an extra dice per file at impact. Essentially each file of longbow will get 2 dice at impact POA and 1 at shooting POA with an extra - or in practice 3 dice needing 5's to the French knights 2 dice needing 3's

The French knights did well in a two deep formation as it diluted the effect of bow fire hits on battle groups, even though only the front rank could fight when they got into contact.

Were you using the modified MF shooting rules in posted by Richard here i.e. 1 dice per base of bow at effective range? Having the knights in a deeper formation does help but longbow should force a test every volley against even heavily armoured knights.

Undrilled troops can wheel with impunity if more than six MU's from the enemy. We felt this should be a complex move, especially for wider groups.

Undrilled troops with a general can wheel with impunity. If you don't have a general with your BG / BL then undrilled have to test to wheel everywhere.

All generals move at 7 MU's. We wondered if a distinction should be made for foot generals (not necessarily dismounted, which could remount).

IIRC the movement of generals is a simplification. It is assumed they all have some imporved form of transport over shanks' pony.

We found ourselves in a position where a group of six French knights did not pursue routing enemy, despite the fact that only one-third of them remained fighting an unbroken unit alongside it. Clearly it is not desirable to split battle groups. We were unsure how this could best be addressed.

As things stand what you did is correct.

One of the English units was destroyed outright. It is not clear in the rules whether the victor should pursue. We played that they should make an immediate pursuit move.

By destroyed outright do you mean completely wiped out before it autobroke!! If so OUCH! If it autobroke due to losses then the rules state that it is removed at the end of the interbound so will be pursued as normal till that point.

As far as we can tell pursuing troops are not disordered in any way, even temporarily. Surely they should be?

While pursuing if a BG remains in contact it has to make a CMT to stop pursuit. If not it is as you surmised unaffected.

Similarly we could not detect any disadvantage accruing to impetuous troops bursting through friends to their front. Again, surely they should be temporarily disordered?

The ones bursting through are OK but the ones being burst through are disrupted which is a lot worse than temporary dissorder.

Practically all our melees involved battle groups splitting their effect against two enemy groups. This was quite fiddly to play out and did result in a non-pursuit move, as above. Our moves were therefore quite slow (just under 30 minutes each) as the French left flank found contact somewhat before the right. By now we know the rules were reasonably well, so this seems no quicker than DBM. Difficult to see how this could be amended unless battle group width is standardised and they have to be aligned centrally on each other in combat (which isn't going to happen!) It seemed to us at the rules work better with looser horse formations manoeuvring against each other as that way single battle groups tend to line up against each other.

This is something that you get much quicker at as you learn the ropes. What I do now is have a load of different coloured dice. As I roll each combat I leave the ones that have inflicted hits behind the troops on my side that have done the inflicting. Go all along the line rolling hits then do the same resolving outcomes. Last night we had two BG's of spear of differeing depths fighting two BG's of knights and a BG of longbow. It took a couple of minutes to resolve the combat.

Hammy


Martin replied to my draft report with some specific points of his own, so I include them here:

Bodies of troops are able to maintain good order/maximum fighting effectiveness too easily after evade/charge/pursuit/melee. I guess if a body charges in a controlled manner to see off evading skirmishers/shooters (ie does not exceed the normal max move), then drilled troops should stay in good order, maybe undrilled should take a cohesion test whether or not they exceed their normal move.

Perhaps troops who fight a single impact and melee should not be disordered if the fight lasts one bound only. However, after more protracted h to h fighting, both sides should count as in some kind of disrupted state, not just the losers. This would promote the use of multiple battle lines and reserves to protect/replace troops during or after their combat, the kind of thing that often gave "drilled " armies an edge.

Evading troops is a difficult one, but once again, maybe one should distinguish between armies which used evades as a battle tactic they practiced and those who used it simply out of a wish of the warriors to preserve their lives! In the first case, maybe a controlled evade in good order would be the norm, but in second, the body may need to rally on standards etc to reorder itself?

I think that by their very nature, troops in pursuit would not be in a state of good order, however they would hit a fresh body with some impetus if their blood was up and bugger their cohesion! I can see a case for a cmt test to stop them hitting a fresh enemy unit, as I can see a case for a unit with a rout going past which is about to be hit by pursuers to have to take a cohesion test!

Thank you Martin!


We got the impression that the rules as currently formulated would reverse the Crecy result more often than not.

We might try a 25mm game next, as we are hoping to put on a demonstration game at the Weymouth show in a month or so. The game was fun to play, but certainly didn't have a "quick play" feel to it. I notice that a previous battle report stretched to 5 hours play before light failed!

Adrian Clarke[/quote]

[rbodleyscott]

We got the impression that the rules as currently formulated would reverse the Crecy result more often than not.

Only if (as you did) you ignore the English + for being uphill.

We are attempting to balance the rules correctly for English longbowmen vs knights, assuming that (as historically) the English were usually either uphill, behind hedges or behind stakes etc. etc.

The need for such precautions suggests that the English at least thought that the knights would have had a good chance in level open ground.

[shall]

adrianc wrote:
We felt that English longbow with armour-piercing bodkin arrows fired at short range should have some kind of benefit in the impact phase (in lieu of highly effective short range fire)

The second rank of the bow BG will shoot overhead and get an extra dice per file at impact. Essentially each file of longbow will get 2 dice at impact POA and 1 at shooting POA with an extra - or in practice 3 dice needing 5's to the French knights 2 dice needing 3's

Just to check did you ngive the extra dice at Impact - it would be 3 per frontage - 2 impact and 1 support shooting for the longbowmen.

Si

[rogerg]

The comment on undrilled wheeling is not how we have read the rules. Either a general with, or being outside 6MU, will make this a simple move. If isn't the intention then it ought to be!

Roger

[rbodleyscott]

The comment on undrilled wheeling is not how we have read the rules. Either a general with, or being outside 6MU, will make this a simple move. Roger

We noticed that you had interpreted this differently.

The rule currently, in fact, is that that it is always a CMT within 6 MUs, and is a CMT outside 6 MUs unless with a general.

Prior to the Usk tournament it was always a CMT within 6MUs and never a CMT outside 6MUs.

The change was proposed to enhance the C&C role of generals.

If isn't the intention then it ought to be!

Any other opinions on this?

[nikgaukroger]

I think the change to enhance the use of generals was a good idea - I'd stick with it.

[rogerg]

Making dice rolls for BG's a long way from the enemy in order to facilitate even a small wheel does not seem an ideal thing to do in play terms. It is also questionable in terms of reality. I would expect a mass of undrilled troops to drift in the general direction they wanted to go. Technically, for the purpose of the game, wheeling the figures is necessary, but that is all.

What about dropping this line from the rules altogether? Limiting undrilled units to moving full distance straight ahead looks like a hangover from DBM. Restricting turning and expanding I can understand, these are formation changes. Walking a few yards in a slightly different direction and stopping when someone yells at you doesn't really need a great deal of drilling. (Teachers with loud voices make this happen in playgrounds every day.)

Here is a good opportunity to take that whole line out of the movement table, remove a rule that is not easy to express, speed up the game by eliminating a dice roll and sacrifice nothing in terms of historical simulation. (I think I am getting a bit carried away, but it does seem to make sense.)

[adrianc]

We got the impression that the rules as currently formulated would reverse the Crecy result more often than not.

Only if (as you did) you ignore the English + for being uphill.

We are attempting to balance the rules correctly for English longbowmen vs knights, assuming that (as historically) the English were usually either uphill, behind hedges or behind stakes etc. etc.

The need for such precautions suggests that the English at least thought that the knights would have had a good chance in level open ground.

As far as we could tell there isn't a POA for fighting uphill on a gentle slope in the open (although the glossary mentions an advantage). A steep hill would have been inappropriate for Crecy and apart from the dubiously effective English pits there wasn't any cover to speak of. Are we missing something and if we are, will others miss it too?

Adrian

[adrianc]

adrianc wrote:
We felt that English longbow with armour-piercing bodkin arrows fired at short range should have some kind of benefit in the impact phase (in lieu of highly effective short range fire)

The second rank of the bow BG will shoot overhead and get an extra dice per file at impact. Essentially each file of longbow will get 2 dice at impact POA and 1 at shooting POA with an extra - or in practice 3 dice needing 5's to the French knights 2 dice needing 3's

Just to check did you ngive the extra dice at Impact - it would be 3 per frontage - 2 impact and 1 support shooting for the longbowmen.

Si

We did Si, the maths still works out in favour of the knights though, especially as they're re-rolling 1's.

Adrian

[adrianc]

By destroyed outright do you mean completely wiped out before it autobroke!! If so OUCH! If it autobroke due to losses then the rules state that it is removed at the end of the interbound so will be pursued as normal till that point.


The ones bursting through are OK but the ones being burst through are disrupted which is a lot worse than temporary dissorder.

It autobroke, Hammy, and as you say, we should have pursued one move at least.

The feeling in our group was that the breaking through troops should have been disadvantaged by arriving in somewhat smaller packets at the enemy line. Do the accounts of Crecy not reflect this?

Adrian

[hammy]

As far as we could tell there isn't a POA for fighting uphill on a gentle slope in the open (although the glossary mentions an advantage). A steep hill would have been inappropriate for Crecy and apart from the dubiously effective English pits there wasn't any cover to speak of. Are we missing something and if we are, will others miss it too?

IMO you are missing something and you are right, others will miss it too.

The POA in question is the one immediately after charging in the flank.

The current wording is (my emphasis) "War wagons or uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank"

It would seem we have a bit of barkereese to be dealt with.

Hammy

[adrianc]

As far as we could tell there isn't a POA for fighting uphill on a gentle slope in the open (although the glossary mentions an advantage). A steep hill would have been inappropriate for Crecy and apart from the dubiously effective English pits there wasn't any cover to speak of. Are we missing something and if we are, will others miss it too?

IMO you are missing something and you are right, others will miss it too.

The POA in question is the one immediately after charging in the flank.

The current wording is (my emphasis) "War wagons or uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank"

It would seem we have a bit of barkereese to be dealt with.


Hammy

Got it, thanks

I am pleased to report that I have just sucessfully reformatted the manouver and combat quick reference sheets in 12 point on 2 sides of A4 (for the visually challenged), so we should experiance less "rulebook reference fatigue" in the future.

Just put War Wagons at the end of that line perhaps, they're a special case anyway,

Cheers

Adrian

[nikgaukroger]

The feeling in our group was that the breaking through troops should have been disadvantaged by arriving in somewhat smaller packets at the enemy line. Do the accounts of Crecy not reflect this?

Crecy had the French knights arriving in smaller numbers than they might have done more through the topography of the Valley des Clercs than their breaking through the Genoese.

[rbodleyscott]

As far as we could tell there isn't a POA for fighting uphill on a gentle slope in the open (although the glossary mentions an advantage). A steep hill would have been inappropriate for Crecy and apart from the dubiously effective English pits there wasn't any cover to speak of. Are we missing something and if we are, will others miss it too?

IMO you are missing something and you are right, others will miss it too.

The POA in question is the one immediately after charging in the flank.

The current wording is (my emphasis) "War wagons or uphill or foot defending field fortifications or a riverbank"

It would seem we have a bit of barkereese to be dealt with.


Hammy

Got it, thanks

I am pleased to report that I have just sucessfully reformatted the manouver and combat quick reference sheets in 12 point on 2 sides of A4 (for the visually challenged), so we should experiance less "rulebook reference fatigue" in the future.

Just put War Wagons at the end of that line perhaps, they're a special case anyway,

Cheers

Adrian

War wagons won't be in the line anyway in the next iteration, they will be dealt with differently.

[lawrenceg]

adrianc wrote:
We felt that English longbow with armour-piercing bodkin arrows fired at short range should have some kind of benefit in the impact phase (in lieu of highly effective short range fire)

The second rank of the bow BG will shoot overhead and get an extra dice per file at impact. Essentially each file of longbow will get 2 dice at impact POA and 1 at shooting POA with an extra - or in practice 3 dice needing 5's to the French knights 2 dice needing 3's

Just to check did you ngive the extra dice at Impact - it would be 3 per frontage - 2 impact and 1 support shooting for the longbowmen.

Si

We did Si, the maths still works out in favour of the knights though, especially as they're re-rolling 1's.

Adrian

I think the maths works out as follows:

Assuming a frontage of 4 bases it is 12 dice (average) versus 8 dice (superior)

In the open, knights are on ++ Knights win impact 81%, lose 9%
With fortifications or a hill knights on + Knights win 54%, lose 29%

If knights disrupted by shooting:

knights on ++ win 55%, lose 27%
knights on + win 32% lose 49%

After 2 bounds of shooting there is a roughly 66% chance that the knights will be at least disrupted, assuming no generals or rear support. If they can get a +1 on the CT this drops to about 45%.

So in the open the knights are favoured. With stakes or a hill, the odds slightly favour the bowmen. It is necessary to take the effects of long range shooting into account to reach these conclusions.

The bowmen also need factors in their favour to have a good chance of winning the melee.

[rbodleyscott]

In the open, knights are on ++ Knights win impact 81%, lose 9%
With fortifications or a hill knights on + Knights win 54%, lose 29%

If knights disrupted by shooting:

knights on ++ win 55%, lose 27%
knights on + win 32% lose 49%

Your calculations are correct for archers without stakes on a gentle hill. However:

If the archers are on the flat behind fortifications (including stakes) the knights are in fact on net - at impact because POAs counting "in open terrain" do not count when attacking fortifications - see glossary.

They get:
No + for lancers.
No + for mounted vs MF in open terrain.

The archers get:
+ for defending fortifications.

With the archers on + and also getting extra dice for support shooting, attacking archers behind stakes with mounted knights is fairly suicidal.

--------------------------------

If the archers are in hedged fields (rough going) the knights are on 0 POAs but lose dice for being Disordered.

No + for lancers.
No + for mounted vs MF in open terrain.

This is almost as bad.

--------------------------------

If the archers are behind stakes in rough going....... no, it is too horrible to contemplate.

[shall]

To summarise the above:

• In the open expect Knights to ride down bowmen but with some risks
  
  Uphill expect the bowmen to win but with some risks
  
  Behind stakes is really tough

Uphill behind stakes is a non starter

So historical results on average dice feel to me to be roughly.............

• Crecy if the English hadn't gone on a hill - Victory to the French (30% ish chance of the reverse)
  
  Crecy with English on a hill (20% chance of a reverse)
  
  Agincourt - victory to the English (10% chance of a reverse)
  
  Nicopolis - Serbian Knights had to dismount to attack the turks uphill behind foritification to have any chance (1% chance of pulling it off otherwise)

Si

[lawrenceg]

Uphill behind stakes is a non starter

On my reference sheet "uphill" and "foot defending FF" are both the same + so I assume you can't count both for ++.

Stakes in uneven terrain that will disorder the knights is pretty bad for them as it slows them down as well, forcing them to suffer another two bounds of shooting, then gives them a net - in combat. Rough would probably be a non-starter even without the stakes as the knights will suffer extra shots and then be on half dice in combat with no POAs. Difficult not quite so bad as the MF bowmen would be disordered as well (still far from good).

Just to make sure I understand this "open terrain" thing correctly:

Lance + and Mtd vs MF + (in fact all the "Only in Open Terrain" POAs ) in the impact phase apply as long as the knights (or whatever) are in the open, even if the MF (or whatever opponents) are not.

For a + in the impact phase, the 4th rank of pike does not need to be in open terrain, only the front rank does. (makes sense as base depths are artificially large). In melee, no ranks need to be in open terrain.

Mounted vs LF in open terrain + in melee applies as long as the LF are in the open, even if the mounted are not. (simulates the mounted getting in amongst the LF in the open, the mounted are already disordered anyway if not in the open themselves)

Above POAs cancelled for any base fighting across a fortification, wagon or riverbank.

CT Modifer -1 for MF fighting HF or mounted in open terrain: Applies regardless of the terrain the MF are in as long as the HF or Mtd are in open terrain. This modifier is cancelled if any base of the MF is attacking or defending a fortification, wagon or riverbank (even if some or all HF or mounted are not fighting across such things). That seems to be what the rules say, but I suspect the intention would be better expressed by

"A base attacking or defending a fortification, wagon or riverbank does not count as in open terrain."

This would mean mounted in melee against the flank or rear of a base of LF that is fighting frontally over fortifications would not get the +POA in addition to the one for enemy fighting in 2 directions, but the LF is in big enough trouble already.

[plewis66]

Uphill behind stakes is a non starter

On my reference sheet "uphill" and "foot defending FF" are both the same + so I assume you can't count both for ++.

I thought this meant you could count both for ++, with those POA's that are mutually exclusive being listed in the 'Any one of...' section...